alferez.v.people.2011

8/16/2019 Alferez.v.people.2011

1/8


2/8

etitioner averred that the prose%ution failed to show that he re%eived the noti%e of

dishonor or de(and letter.

;n +ar%h 4, 2005, the +TCC issued a resolution &*' denin petitioner=s $e(urrer to

-viden%e, and renderin >ud(ent findin petitioner uilt as %hared, the

dispositive portion of whi%h reads/

?7-R-@;R-, the Court finds the a%%used uilt )eond reasona)le dou)t of the

%ri(e of issuin )oun%in %he%s as defined and penalied under e%tion 1 of atas

a()ansa l. 22 and here) senten%es the a%%used the followin/

1. To pa a fine of hp830,668.40 and in %ase of insolven% to suffer

su)sidiar i(prison(ent9

2. To pa private %o(plainant the total fa%e value of the %he%s in the

a(ount of hp830,668.40 plus 1A interest per (onth )einnin fro(the filin of the %o(plaint.

; ;R$-R-$.&8'

!rieved, petitioner appealed to the Reional Trial Court "RTC#, ran%h 21, Ce)u

Cit. The RTC rendered ud(ent&6' affir(in in toto the +TCC de%ision. etitioner

(oved for re%onsideration, )ut it was denied in an ;rder&10' dated $e%e()er 1:,

2005. n the sa(e ;rder, the RTC (odified the +TCC resolution ) senten%in

petitioner to suffer the penalt of i(prison(ent for si< ":# (onths for ea%h %ount of

violation of . l. 22, instead of fine as oriinall i(posed.

Bndaunted, petitioner elevated the (atter to the C! via a petition for review under

Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. n the assailed $e%ision, the C! dis(issed the

petition for la% of (erit. t sustained petitioner=s %onvi%tion as the ele(ents of the

%ri(e had )een suffi%ientl esta)lished. !s to the servi%e on petitioner of the noti%e

of dishonor, the appellate %ourt pointed out that petitioner did not testif, and that

he did not o)>e%t to the prose%ution=s eviden%e ai(ed at provin the fa%t of re%eipt

of the noti%e of dishonor. Conseuentl, the reistr re%eipt and the return %ard

adeuatel show the fa%t of re%eipt. !s to petitioner=s %ontention that he was

denied his riht to present eviden%e after the denial of his de(urrer to eviden%e,

the C! held that there was no su%h denial sin%e it was (erel the %onseuen%e of

the filin of de(urrer without leave of %ourt. @inall, as to the i(position of the

penalt of i(prison(ent instead of fine, the C! found no rave a)use of dis%retion

on the part of the RTC sin%e it was shown that petitioner a%ted in )ad faith.&11'


3/8

;n +ar%h 4, 2008, the C! denied petitioner=s (otion for re%onsideration. 7en%e,

this petition an%hored on the followin issues/

?hether the Reistr Re%eipt and Reistr Return Re%eipt alone without presentin

the person who (ailed andDor served the de(and letter is suffi%ient noti%e of

dishonor as reuired ) 22.

?hether the filin of the $e(urrer of "si%# -viden%e without leave and denied )

the trial %ourt is a waiver of the riht of the petitioner "the a%%used )efore the trial

%ourt# to present his eviden%e in support and to re)ut the eviden%e of the

respondent parti%ularl with respe%t to the %ivil aspe%t of the %ase.

;n the alternative "if the petitioner is uilt#, whether the a%%used should onl )e

(ete&d' the penalt of fine as i(posed ) the trial %ourt "+TCC#.&12'

The petition is partl (eritorious.

!fter a %areful evaluation of the re%ords of the %ase, we )elieve and so hold that the

totalit of the eviden%e presented does not support petitioner=s %onvi%tion for

violation of .. l. 22.

e%tion 1 of .. l. 22 defines the offense, as follows/&13'

e%tion 1. Checks without sufficient funds.!n person who (aes or draws and

issues an %he% to appl on a%%ount or for value, nowin at the ti(e of issue that

he does not have suffi%ient funds in or %redit with the drawee )an for the pa(ent

of su%h %he% in full upon its present(ent, whi%h %he% is su)seuentl dishonored

) the drawee )an for insuffi%ien% of funds or %redit or would have )een

dishonored for the sa(e reason had not the drawer, without an valid reason,

ordered the )an to stop pa(ent, shall )e punished ) i(prison(ent of not less

than thirt das )ut not (ore than one "1# ear or ) a fine of not less than )ut not

(ore than dou)le the a(ount of the %he% whi%h fine shall in no %ase e


4/8

persons who a%tuall sined the %he% in )ehalf of su%h drawer shall )e lia)le under

this !%t.

!%%ordinl, this Court has held that the ele(ents of the %ri(e are, as follows/ "1#

the (ain, drawin, and issuan%e of an %he% to appl on a%%ount or for value9

"2# the nowlede of the (aer, drawer, or issuer that at the ti(e of issue he does

not have suffi%ient funds in or %redit with the drawee )an for the pa(ent of the

%he% in full upon its present(ent9 and "3# the su)seuent dishonor of the %he% )

the drawee )an for insuffi%ien% of funds or %redit, or dishonor for the sa(e

reason had not the drawer, without an valid %ause, ordered the )an to stop

pa(ent.&14'

n this %ase, the first and third ele(ents of the %ri(e have )een adeuatel

esta)lished. The prose%ution, however, failed to prove the se%ond ele(ent. e%ause

this ele(ent involves a state of (ind whi%h is diffi%ult to esta)lish, e%tion 2 of ..

l. 22 %reates a presu(ption of nowlede of insuffi%ien% of funds under thefollowin %ir%u(stan%es/&15'

e%. 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. The (ain, drawin, and

issuan%e of a %he% pa(ent of whi%h is refused ) the drawee )e%ause of

insuffi%ient funds in or %redit with su%h )an, when presented within ninet das

fro( the date of the %he%, shall )e prima facie eviden%e of nowlede of su%h

insuffi%ien% of funds or %redit unless su%h (aer or drawer pas the holder thereof

the a(ount due thereon, or (aes arrane(ents for pa(ent in full ) the drawee

of su%h %he% within five "5# )anin das after re%eivin noti%e that su%h %he%

has not )een paid ) the drawee.

n Suarez v. People,&1:' whi%h is on all fours with the instant %ase, two nfor(ations

for violation of .. l. 22 were filed aainst petitioner therein. !fter the

prose%ution presented its eviden%e, petitioner filed a $e(urrer to -viden%e without

leave of %ourt on the round that no noti%e of dishonor had )een sent to and

re%eived ) hi(. ?hen the %ase rea%hed this Court, we a%uitted petitioner on

reasona)le dou)t as there was insuffi%ient proof that he re%eived noti%e of

dishonor. ?e e


5/8

< <


6/8

of the %ri(e as its %ase will rise or fall on the strenth of its own eviden%e, never on

the weaness or even a)sen%e of that of the defense.&2*' The failure of the

prose%ution to prove the re%eipt ) petitioner of the reuisite noti%e of dishonor and

that he was iven at least five "5# )anin das within whi%h to settle his a%%ount

%onstitutes suffi%ient round for his a%uittal.&28'

Nonetheless, petitioner=s a%uittal for failure of the prose%ution to prove all

ele(ents of the offense )eond reasona)le dou)t does not in%lude the

e


7/8

&2' d. at 2:2*.

&3' C! rollo, p. 18.

&4' $ollo, p. 1*.

&5' C! rollo, pp. 2223.

&:' d. at 2831.

&*' enned ) residin ude Gil R. !%osta9 id. at 1821.

&8' d. at 21.

&6' enned ) residin ude -ri% @. +en%have9 id. at 1415.

&10' d. at 1:1*.

&11' $ollo, pp. 1624.

&12' d. at :.

&13' %ing v. People, 3** hil. :62, *0: "1666#.

&14'

Suarez v. People, G.R. No. 1*25*3, une 16, 2008, 555 CR! 238, 2459 "oster v. People, G.R. No. 1:*4:1, @e)ruar 16, 2008, 54: CR! 28*, 26:.

&15' Suarez v. People, supra, at 2459 %ing v. People, supra note 13, at *08*06.

&1:' upra.

&1*' d. at 24:.

&18' "oster v. People, supra note 14, at 26*268.

&16' d. at 268, %itin $ico v. People, G.R. No. 13*161, Nove()er 18, 2002, 362

CR! :1, *3.

&20' "oster v. People, supra, at 266, %itin Cabrera v. People, 454 hil. *56, **4

"2003#.

&21' Cabrera v. People, supra, at **4.


8/8

&22' &ing v. Court of !ppeals, 368 hil. 481, 464 "2000#.

&23' "oster v. People, supra note 14, at 266.

&24' !mbito v. People, G.R. No. 12*32*, @e)ruar 13, 2006, 5*6 CR! :6, 64.

&25' d. at 62.

&2:' Suarez v. People, supra note 14, at 24*.

&2*' "oster v. People, supra note 14, at 2669 %ing v. People, supra note 13, at *11.

&28' "oster v. People, supra, at 266.

&26' !mbito v. People, supra note 24, at 64.

&30' 'un 'ung Park v. Eung )on Choi , G.R. No. 1:546:, @e)ruar 12, 200*, 515

CR! 502, 513.

&31' !mbito v. People, supra note 24, at 64, %itin Ba* v. People, G.R. No. 146858,

epte()er 5, 200*, 532 CR! 284, 2622639 $ico v. People, supra note 16, at *49

+omangsang v. Court of !ppeals, G.R. No. 136262, $e%e()er 5, 2000, 34* CR!

*5, 8485.

&32'

'un 'ung Park v. Eung )on Choi , supra note 30, at 512513.

our%e/ upre(e Court -Fi)rar $ate %reated/ +ar%h 04, 2011

This pae was dna(i%all enerated ) the -Fi)rar Content +anae(ent ste(

Supreme Court E-ibrar

alferez.v.people.2011

Documents